The Sun. — London, England, 1836-06-23 00:00:00

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS. CRIM7CON NORTON V. MELBOURNE. (Continued from our First Edition of yesterday, and which appeared in our Second and Third Editions of last night.) John Flooke cross-examined by the ATTORNEY-GENE. !RAL.—Witness was a married man, and had three children living out of ten. When he went from Mr. Norton's service, he removal into Monmouth-street. He did not keep any cab there. Sold there second-hand shirts, shoes, and so on in ` a cellar. Witness lived there ever sinc e till l a tely. H a d been embarrassed in his circumstances when he left Mr. Norton's service, and had not yet had it in his power to pay his creditors. Was found out as a witness in the case about six weeks ago. Did not live in ti,: cellar in Mon mouth street now. Had been to Wor.ersh. where he went by the coach, together with his and family, bag and baggage.—(Laughter.) been examined with respect to this matter by the S4iicitor for the Plaintiff, before he wont down to Woneash. Mr. Norton had also examined him at Lincoln's-Inn-tields. Lord Grantley (who sat on the Bench) lived at Wonersh. The solicitors for the plaintiff paid his f - .re there, they gave him 101. to take his wife and children there ; but he had not received any money from the since. Did not leave Wonersh till last night. Prat of the time lie was there he lived at the Grantley Arms, but there was no witness residing there with the exception of himself. There was not a person of the name of Cummins there. After he left the public-house be took a room in the village, but he did not carry on any business, although he resided there up to last night. While at Wo nersh he amused himself as well as he could—( A laugh)— he fished and walked al,a u t—(Great laughter.) Had seen Lord Grantley while he was there, and was once exa mined by one of the solicitors there. Witness went to Guild -11)rd to buy 'ills marketings, but no one examined him there. Went to the chambers of the plaintiff's solicitor every day, and sometimes was examined, and sometimes not. Had never said, to the best of his recollection, that he had been under examination for nine days ; he might have said so, and he might not. He never said that Lord Wynford had examined him. Had a knowledge of the landlord of the Robin Hood tavern, whose name, he believed, was John Cumbers. Witness called at his house on his way down to Wonersh, where he gave him a letter to take to a person of the name of Wynn. Cumbers came to Wonersh while he was there very tipsy, but witness had no conversation with him about their affairs. Drove him part of the way home, because he was not capable of walking. Did not think he told him he was under exami nation nine days. Was sure he had never told him that Lord Wynford had examined him, and that they would have a verdict on his ; evidence he should have been very blame able if he had. Never said he had a good place at Mr. Norton's ; he had a very bad one----(Laughter)—and if it had not been for his cab and horse, he should not have been able to live on Mr. Norton's half wages. What was the reason, Sir, that You left Mr. Norton's service?—Why, if the truth must be told, Sir, I got a little drop too much.—(Great laughter.) It was a Court day, and we generally get something to drink on those days. --(lncreased laughter.) Mr. and Mrs. Norton fell out in the carriage, and I suppose Mrs. Norton was determined to spit her spite at me.—(Great laughter.) Had you taken any thing that day ?—Yes, I had a drop too much, and Mrs. Norton was cross that evening, because the black horse happened to gallop.—(Much laughter.) I could not keep him in a trot.—(Renpared laughter.) Horses will break sometimes into a gallop, and you can't help it.— (Great laughter.) And so they spit their spite on you ?—Oh dear, yes, Sir ; it is not the first time I have had it. Then you sometimes had a drop too much ?—Why, Sir, I don't know who don't.—(Much laughter.) The best of us take it, masters and servants.—(Much laughter.) Did Mrs. Norton complain of you ?—Yes, although I was a very good servant. Did they not say you talked a good deal ?—Yes, I did tell my mind pretty fairly. Had you a wound on your head ?—No, but I had a little touch of Waterloo on my hip. That was nobody's busi ness. for I never complained of it. How often did you take a drop too much ?—.Witness (with surprise)—What, Sir, in four years ?—(Roars of laughter.) 1 want to know 'now often to the best of your recollec tion ?—Ah, Sir, you put too heavy a question to me. How often on a moderate computation ?—Why, Sir, some people carry their liquor so well that you can't tell when they have got it.—(Much laughter.) I can't answer that question. Die, it happen every afternoon?—Oh, Sir, I was not drunk every day. What, then ?—Why, I should say, middling, as we are all, more or less.—(Shouts of laughter.) Were you drunk driving to the Queen's Ball?—No, Sir, I was sober then ; but going to the Marquis of Lans downe's in the evening, I certainly had a drop too much. That was when the black horse gallopped. Was not Mr. Norton obliged to drive himself ?—Why, Sir, Mr. Norton did get on the box, but he had got his opera hat on, and I did not think he looked very well n g. "Were you not so drunk that Mr. Norton was obliged to get on the box ?—l'll tell you the whole, Sir. When Mrs. Norton wanted to do anything, she was sure to get master to do it, he was so fond of her ; and you know, Sir, when Mr. Norton got on the box, being a goodish coachman, I did not like to see him made a ridicule of in a mob—(Much Laughter)—so I said, " If you mean to drive, Sir, I won't stay on the box at all." I had one of my own and one of my master's horses under the carriage, and I did not like to see my horse doing all the work ; so I got off and walked, and took a couple of half-pints of coffee, and you know I could not do that if I was drunk. So, when I got up to the Marquis of Lansdowne's, I saw a fellow cutting right and left at my horses, who would not go on. I thought my master wets making himself look rather foolish for a gen tleman, so I went to assist him, and I said—" I must take my horses out."—(Great laughter.) So I went to take my "horses out, and Mr. Norton says—" John, John, don't do that. Policeman, take John away !"—(Roars of laughter.) So the policeman took me, and I said I was quite agree able to go, if he did not touch me ; and he put me in the watchhouse all night, and there I was till morning. I did not take the horses out ; but indeed I thought my horse would be better out than where he was. I took bold of the reins. The carriage was stopped at the time. Next morning I was fined ss. for being drunk, although I was as sober as I am now.—(Laughter) I don't know the Ma gistrate's name who fined me, but my master knew him. It was an unjust sentence, but I had only ss. to pay. I was then discharged. IF Mrs. Norton told master to do any thing, he would do it. I think it was more her fault than master's that I was discharged. Did you not say that d—d b— Mrs. Norton had had you discharged ?—l. may have said that or I may nu. It was enough to make a man angry and say what he did not mean. Did you not say you .would be revenged of her ?—I never did. Did you not say you were the principal witness against the Premier of England ?—I said I was one of the wit nesses.:l do not know that I could have said that. Have you not said That if the trial went right, you would receive 500/. or 6001. ?—I do not recollect anything of the kind. I only wish to get enough to cat and drink.- COURT—Did you ever say that if the trial went right you would get 500/. or 600/. ?—No, my Lord, I do not recollect anything of the kind. By the ATTORNEY-GENERAL—Did you not say you would be made up if the trial went right, as you ;were the .‘' principal witness?—How could I say that ?—(A laugh.) I am not acquainted with the law, and I don't know what' the gentleman would give. Did you not say you would retire to Scotland ?—lf Mr. Charles (Norton) was alive I dare say I would have gone there: I wz;s in his service. Did you not say you would retire to Scotland ?—I don't recollect any thing of the kind. . On your solemn oath, have you not said, if all went right, you would get 500/. or 600/., and retire to Scotland, and care for nobody ?—Never, to my knowled g e. Did you not say so within the last kitnight ?—No ; nor within a week, nor within the forty-eight hours, nor within the last twenty-four he,..ars. I never said so to rny knowledge. Have you not said . , " Although I can prove ford Mel bourne guilty, ne,l,, o d y knows what I can prove ?"—I don't know any th;:, i g about what you are talking of at all. Have you ne,L said that Lord Wynford did not know what You were to prove ?—I don't know Lord Wynford at all. T 17,0 same question was repeated, with the same answer. Did you not say, that although Lord Wynford examined you, he did not know what you were to prove ?—I never saw Lord Wynford. I don't know him. I know nothing of what you are talking. The witness was repeatedly asked whether he had not f requently said, that if all went right he would get five or six hunr!,red pounds, and retire to Scotland, and would not carp. 'tor any one. His answers were, that he did not know .—he had no recollection of it—how could he say so, and other evasive replies. I bought my gig and cab from one Saunders, but I have not paid him the entire. The ac count is not settled between us yet. I was sent after a . couplo of people to get evidence against Lord Melbourne. I was not employed to fish up the evidence. I did not say that to a person named Sly. I might have said I was cm- Ployed to collect evidence for Mr. Norton. I said nothing about fishing. I might have said so, but Ido not recollect it. I told Sly that I had been two years out of place, and that I thought this matter would make me amends. I ..- ~.- 112 ji ght have said that, but I don't recollect. I can't swear - ll' . _,oo4i'.wat or other. t% ~ -. . Wily did you give up the selling of old shirts and shoes? . iii .; ••••• )4 - ..,<",-,:.--:. • —Why, if you wanted a witness ra Alotild try And 'ght one, and tarn only cone to thtth. Saunders never advanced me any ni'dAty i Ito made me accept bills for his olvn ace . eMenedatitm, and was going to have me arrested. nevtt pve my creditors notice of my giving uphuititit.: 'awed about 100/. when I left that 10.002 C tho Bell-yard. I don't know whether my er.3Aitan arc waiting the result of the trial or tr3t, Norton never gave me money to pay to NotritiltiA, the saddler, which I applied to my owe nt. •A not recollect it, at least.---(Latughttr.) 1 had 'a 64;-harness and a bridle of Nerringlon. Mr. Norton never gave me any money to pay for a bridle. Does not remem ber Mr. Norton's having given him any money for such a parpose. Broke a horse at the Bell-yard. Sold a colt for a Mr. Salmon for 20/. Did not given him the money ; was very poor at that time. Did not hear of a warrant being out against him for this affair. Did not tell Mr. Salmon when he left the Bell-yard that he waA going to Monmouth-street. When he left the Bell-yard, he went first to Pimlico ; stopped there a week. Had stables= for his horse there ; sold the horse at the end of the week. The people in the Bell-yard knew he was going to Sloan-street, Pimlico. Paid five shillings a week for the cellar in Monmouth-street. Gave it up three weeks ago, since be went to Wonersh. Don't know if he is to get any thing for this business. One would like to be paid for his work. Does not intend to go to the country ; London agrees\ best with his eonstitu- lion. The air of St. James's would suit him as well as Monmouth-street. It was either in November or De cember he saw Mrs. Norton lying on the rug. There was a large fire in the grate, and the room was a small one. There was a sofa in the room, but it was near the window. Saw the sofa there about a month ago. Went to tell his master, Mr. Norton, that he had found Cummings. Found her in a lodging in Tottenham-court-road before he went to Wonersh. Cummings went to Woncrsh about three weeks since. Ile had been there some days before she arrived. She lived at the house of a person named Franks, near Lord Grantley's. Might have spoken to her about this business—it was natural he should. Cummings had three children. He did not know of either her - or the children going by any name but Cummings. She passed as a widow. Re-examined by Sir W. FOLLETT—Was in the 73d Regiment of Foot. Was at the battle of Waterloo, and had a pension of sixpence a day. Was discharged in 1819. Lived with Mr. Charles Norton, a Lieutenant in the 521, before he went to live with Mr. Norton. Had a certifi cate of good conduct from his regiment. Cumbers keeps the Robin Hood public-house. Sly is a hemp and leather seller in St. Andrew-street. Mr. THESSIGER requested that the next witness should be sworn on a Bible with the cross, she being a Roman Catholic. Anne Cummings, examined by Mr. CROWDER—Was in the service of Mrs. Norton two years and three months. Went into it in October, 1831. Was nurse to Mrs. Nor ton. There was one child when she went first. Attended upon both Mrs. Norton and the child. Lord Melbourne used to visit there. He called frequently three or four, and sometimes five times a week. He called at twelve sometimes, and sometimes in the afternoon. He remained an hour and sometimes better. Opened the door once or twice for Lord Melbourne. Her orders were to say that Mrs. Norton was not at home when Lord Melbourne was there. Recollects bringing pen and paper to the monthly nurse, to write to Lord Melbourne after her confinement, as Mrs. Norton was not able to write herself. Mrs. Norton asked her why she did not put ribbands on her dressing-gown, and that she was afraid Lord Melbourne would call before it was ready. After the birth of the second child, she recol lected Mrs. Norton kissing the baby in the presence of Lord Melbourne, and asking him was it not a handsome child ? Lord Melbourne said it was, and Rot like Norton. Saw Mrs. Norton with her hand on Lord Melbourne's knee once when she went into the room with the baby without knocking. Had seen Mrs. Norton another time sitting beside Lord Melbourne on the sofa, with her hand on his shoulder. She generally assisted Mrs. Norton to dress. She assisted Ninette Elliot to dress her sometimes. Mrs. Norton always rouged, and sometimes penciled her eyebrows. Was in the habit of taking her a clean pocket handkerchief. Mrs. Norton always rung for her to settle her collar. When she came up stairs during Lord Melbourne's visits her waistband used to be off, and she was called to assist in putting it on. She (Mrs. Norton) always asked for another pocket handkerchief, and told her to hurry, as Lord Melbourne was waiting to see her again. Lord Melbourne remained about half an hour after this. She attended to Mrs. Norton's liner), but took no particu lar notice, as she had no suspicietn of anything wrong. Cross-examined by Mr. THESSIGER—Is a widow at present. Her husband is dead about six years ; his name was Cummings. She has not gone by that name lately, but by the name of a man to whom she is going to be mar ried. She went by his name, since she left Mr. Thessi ger's bouse.—(A laugh, in which Mr. Thessiger joined) The man's name was Owen, by whose name she went. She came into Mr. Thessiger's service as a widow. Had a child four months after she left Mr. Thessiger. Intended to marry Owen when trade got good.—(A laugh.) They wanted money. Was living in Cumberland -street, Mid dlesex Hospital, before she went to Wonersh. Went by the name of. Owen there, and since the baby was born. Was so teazed by persons coming from Lord Melbourne, and others, - that she was obliged to go to Wonersh.—(A laugh.) She told this to Mr. Norton's lawyers, and that old gentleman there (pointing to Mr. Vizard, Lord Mel bourne's agent.) Saw Mr. Vizard but once. He did not tell her to go into the country. Was told to go Wonersh by one of the clerks. The clerk asked her:would she like to go there ; and she said yes. Knew that Lord Grantley lived at Wonersh. Her travelling expenses were paid- She went by herself, with three children. Got her expenses, .51., from a gentleman (Mr. Curry.) Got 11. .ss. every week after she went there, all but one week, then she got 1/. ; this she got from Mr. Head, who is something on Lord Grant ley's estate. She saw Fluke and his wife there. Talked with them about this business. Fluke used to tell her the positions he saw Lord Melbourne in, and she used to tell Fluke the positions she saw him in. She was examined four times before she left London. Was examined once at Wonersh by Mr. Wynn. Saw Lord Grantley ; he put no questions to her. Mr. Norton was there, but he did not examine her then. He did so in London once. She was examined five times altogether to the best of her knowledge. Was never promised any money if she went down into the country ; all she was desired was to tell the truth. Knows Mrs. Garrett lived in the same house with her. Does not recollect having spoken to her about this matter. She might have done so. Does not recollect having stated to anybody that when Lord Melbourne came to Mrs. Norton's she used to go into the room without reserve. Went twice into the room without knocking at the door. Can not swear that she did not go oftener. Mr. Norton used to come from his office about five o'clock in the evening; could not say whether he came home earlier. Recollects him coming home twice earlier than four o'clock to go to ride in the Park with Mrs. Norton. Recollects once Mr. Norton being writing in the dining-room and Lord Melbourne up stairs. Recollects Lord Melbourne dining at Mrs. Nor ton's ; he came to two dinner parties after little Brinsley was born. The nurse, Mrs. Lily, was there seven days' after the child was born.. Mrs. Norton had her dressing gowns ready before she was confined, but they had not rib bands to them. She generally sent the linen to the wash every week. Never saw any thing to excite suspicion in the conduct of Lord Melbourne and Mrs. Norton while she lived in Mr. Norton's house. Re-examined by Sir W. FOLLETT—HA seen what she had sworn to to-day, but never suspected any thing wrong. She thought the kneeling and putting the hand on the knee a great liberty, but thought it was merely because of the great friendship between his Lordship and Mrs. Norton's father. Mrs. Norton told her that he had been so one day after Lord Melbourne had gone about an hour. It was after the birth of Brinsley, the second boy. The witnesses for the defendant were in a different room from those for the plaintiff. Lived with Mrs. Norton for two years and three months. Lived be fore with General Teyfe and Dr. Herbert, who recom mended her to Mrs. Norton and Mr. Thessiger. Owen was a tailor, to whom she was to be married. She told the gentleman who wanted her to go down to Wonersh, that gentlemen were calling upon her, so that she could not attend to her work. They sent Mrs. More to her, who was the n urse w h om s h e succee d e d i n M rs. N orton ' s service. Mrs. More wanted her to go and see Mrs. Nor ton, as it would not suit her, as witness, to say anything against her. Having told the plaintiff's solicitor of that, then he spoke of her going to the country. She received from the plaintiff's solicitor altogether 81., besides the 1 1.55. a week for four weeks. Mr. Vizard put a good many questions to her. He called upon her the same day as Mrs. More. Mr. Norton said she was to speak the truth, and if she did not come Ile would send a policeman for her and compel her. Mrs. Morris, examined by Sir W. FOLLELT—Lived in Mrs. Norton's service. The letters produced were in her handwriting. (The letters referred to by Sir William Fol lett in his address to the Jury wore here put in and read.) Witness lived there two years. Lord Melbourne was -fre quently in the habit of calling. Had often carried notes from Mrs. Norton to Lord Melbourne ; never any back. She was nurse. The children, were never allowed in the room, as Lord Melbourne did not like children. She was in the service at the present time. Mrs. Norton left home on the 29th of March. The children were now in the country, under the care of witness. Had not seen Mrs. Norton since. Cross-examined by the ATTORNEY.-GENERAL--K DCW there was a quarrel between Mr. and Mrs. Norton, but did not know what it was about. She was aware that Mrs. Norton wanted to go to Frampton with her children to visit her brotheks. Did not know that Mr. Norton was THE SUN, LONDON, TitURSDAY, JUNE 23 1 13d. angry ,because he was not invited. She knew he was not: Mr. Norton did not say that theghildren should not go if he did n o t go , t o h er k now ! rnere was to be a family meeting It rrartipion of the Sheridan family and their children. Down to March, Mr. and Mrs. Norton bad lived on the usual terms of harmony. , On the 29th Of Mitreli, •Mr Norton said the chiltittti thotild not go to Frampton, but tlpw shthlid go to Wonersh, and he gave orders ac cordingly, and they were taken away. MI s. Norton was in a state of the greatest distress at losing the children. • Wit ness dressed Mrs. Norton, and let her out at seven o'clock in the morning. The children were in bed at the time. Mr. Norton had not then decided that thew should go to Wonersh till the evening. It had been all arranged that the children should go to Frampton. They had gone out to dinner the day before—they bad words. and then in the night Mr. Norton came up and said the children were not to go to Frampton in the morning, and that his orders were to be obeyed. Until that time she was not aware of any dispute be tween them. Mrs. Norton came up immediately after Mr. Norton, and asked what he had said? Being told, she said his orders must be obeyed. She let her out at seven o'clock, but was not aware then that the children were to be removed — all she knew was that they were not to go to Frampton. She saw her again after, but not in the house. The children were removed that morning to Upper Berkeley street. Mrs. Norton came up there—it was in lodgings. Mr. N. had then said nothing about Wonersh. Mrs. N. came there in a state of great agitation—she appeared very much hurt indeed. She remained about an hour, but was not allowed to see the children—Mr. N. ordered that no one should. The children were taken home that night to Storey's-gate, and were removed to Wonersh next day. Knew of no other quarrel, except about going 'to Frampton. Witness knew that Mrs. Norton was going to her sister's, Lady Seymour, in Spring Gardens, at. seven o'clock in the morn ing. Mr. Norton had come home once or twice when Lord Melbourne was in the house, and then Mr. Norton event up to the dining-room. Lord Melbourne came in day-light. Re-examined by Sir W. FOLLETT—The visit to Framp ton had been arranged for a month or five weeks before the quarrel. Things were all ready to go to Frampton in the morning on which Mr. Norton gave orders against it. Mrs. Norton asked her still to remain with her children when she saw her in Berkeley-street. James Benbow examined by Mr. BAYLEY—Said he lived in the service of Mr. Norton in 1832. Continued in it eight months as footman. Chief business was to answer the door. Lord M. was in the habit of calling often, per haps four or five times a week, chiefly in the afternoon. Mr. Norton was not generally at home. Mrs. Norton was at home ; used to show him into the drawing-room. Stayed generally perhaps two hours. Never knew Lord Melbourne refused when Mrs. Norton was at home. Never knew other visitors refused. Lord Melbourne on several occa sions called more than once a day ; frequently took notes From Mrs. Norton to Lord Melbourne to the Secretary's office and to South-street. Mr. Norton was not at home when these notes were sent. Lord Melbourne called almost immediately after the notes were sent. Should say on some occasions Mrs. Norton had a note to Lord Melbourne shortly after be had left. Cross-examined by Mr. Sergeant TA LFOURD—Lived now with Mr. Bish. There were five servants in Mr. Norton's employ besides witness. When Mr. N. had been there Lord Melbourne dined there occasionally, not frequently. They kept very little company. Very few gentlemen came there. Had been out with the carriage to the theatre. Upon no occasion had Lord Melbourne ac companied them, nor to Vauxhall. Mr. and Mrs. Norton went out a good deal to evening parties. Received no in junction as to secrecy about the notes he had carried. Mary Anne Figgis examined by Mr. CROWDER—Was cook to Mr. Norton. Was in his service in the beginning of 1833. Was there twelve months • returned again for three weeks to oblige M rs . N or t on . Was in her service at this moment. During this time Lord Melbourne visited frequently. Opened the door to him. He came three or four times a week ; had been in the drawing-room when he was there ; always knocked before entering. Mrs. Norton kept her papers in the drawing room in a small blue. trunk. Went away at night ; when she came again heard that something had happened between Mr. and Mrs. Norton. The drawing-room was not locked. Did not know what became of the box. The witness was not cross-examined. The papers containing Mr. Norton's appointment as a police magistrate were now put in, and Sir William Follett then said that the plaintiff's case was closed. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL applied to have the further hearing of case adjourned till to-morrow. They had now been in a crowded Court 8i hours, and he was, for his own part, quite exhausted ; so much so that it was impos sible that he could do justice to his client, and he was sure that the Jury were so exhausted, that they would be un able to pay that attention to the case which it required. Sir Wm. FOLLETT said that he objected to the adjourn ment. The Attorney-General would state that he intended to call witnesses, and as the Attorney-General reflised to pledge himself to do so, the application, after some alter cation, vas refused. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL then applied for an adjourn ment of a quarter of an hour, in order that he might get some refreshment, which was granted. At a quarter to seven the Court being resumed, The ATTORNEY-GENERAL rose to address the Jury for the defendant. He could assure them unfeignedly that he rejoiced in the wish intimated by them, that the trial should close that evening. Their wish had saved him a night of anxiety, and he knew that before they left the Court, his client would be delivered from the unfounded charge brought against him. They would have the satisfaction when they laid their heads upon their pillows, to reflect that, having heard all the evidence, and given it the most dispassionate consideration, they would come to the calm and clear conclusion . that it was wholly insufficient to support the accusation. He confessed that it would have been more according to the usual practice if his Learned Friend Sir William Follett—instead of opposing —had seconded his application for an adjournment. But no—. when he found that it might be an advantage to the defendant, he strongly opposed the delay. That, lee must say, was an unusual opposition ; but the present was an unusual case. He (the Attorney-General) disdained the notion of asking for delay, on the ground that he should call witnesses. He would tell them frankly that he would call no witnesses. He would rest upon that which lie should demonstrate to them—that no case had been made out against his client—that all the material facts that had been urged were false—and that from the facts that really did exist, no inference whatever unfavourable to his client could be drawn. He asserted his innocence, and that there was no proof whatever in which a Jury could satisfactorily come to a conclusion of his guilt. His Learned Friend had truly said that this was a criminal prosecution. It was a prosecution for a high crime, and he should evert maintain that the violation of Use marriage vow was one of the great est crimes, and in proportion as the accusation was deep and grievous, the proof ought to be clear and convincing. There was every presumption in his client's favour in the present instance. There was a charge against two parties, and they should bear this in mind, that neither of them could be called as witnesses. Lord Melbourne could not, because he was the defendant—Mrs. Norton could not, because she was the wife of the plaintiff. Therefore it was impossible if any witness could come forward and say that he had seen a fact when no person except these two were present, that that witness could be contradicted. They could only, in such a case, look to the character of the witness—the probability of the story, and the credit to which it was en titled. If a charge of want of chastity was brought against the purest of women, and that no one but the accuser was said to be present, she must rest her defence on her own innocence—the improbability of the story—and the charac ter of the accuser. In the present case they ought to have evidence, clear, convincing, unequivocal—leaving no rea sonable doubt on their minds. They must believe that the adulterous act was really committed and completed, for no thing short of it would entitle the plaintiff to a verdict. The most alarming consequences would result from as op posite state of things, and if the nuptial tic could be dis solved without absolute proof of adultery, the evidence must be the same as in a criminal indictment, and the de fendant was entitled to the same presumptions and privi leges, the same evidence must be given, as was required for dissolving the marriage altogether, in prosecuting a sentence of divorce, in which case even the confession of the parties was considered insufficient. The • learned authority to which Sir William Follett had referred had said emphatically that it mud be seen not only that she had surrendered her mind but her person, otherwise it would be wholly insufficient. He should be able to show them that there was nothin g but an anti macy of friendship and innocence — nothingbut what was known to and sanctioned by Mr. 'Norton. He acquitted Mr. Norton from having any idea that there was anything improper between the parties, or that it would disgrace him if a verdict was found against him, by the suspicion that he connived at his own dishonour. This was the most ex traordinary case that ever was brought into a Court of Jus tice. These parties were married in 1827, and lived hap pily together till the 29th of March, 1836 —no alienation of the affections or seduction of the mind of the wife ; and, in his experience, he had always found that this was the in evitable consequence of a breach of the conjugal vow— that a woman who forgot the duties of a wife, forgot those of a mother. On the contrary, Mrs. Norton, down to that period, was fondly attached to her children ; and, as the witness had stated, when she found she was deprived of her children, she was almost deprived of bar reason, and was in a state bordering on distraction. In the history of such cases the parties had generally lived happily until the paramour had been introduced, and then the affections of the wife had been gradually weaned from her husband and children, and she forgot all her domestic duties, which ended id a digcdVei'• dl 'llcl inflcleli y arid Sepafalioli. Was tlibfe any single circumstance in the present case like that picture? No, all was uninterrupted harmony according to the evi dence, except that of the infamous witness, Ninette Elliot, which was contrar!! to We Mule tenof 6kii; as well as the opening of his Learned friend. There was no suspicion of any impropriety by Mr. Norton in Lord Mel bourne's visits ; on the contrary, he approved of them. That was another feature of suspicion, and shewed them that the present was ualike every other case. It shewed that Mr. Norton was under some delusion, that his mind was poisoned, and that be had been made the tool of others, he would not say from personal but from political motives, by which the present action was commenced and supported. He cared not for the political sentiments of those he ad dressed—he would as soon have twelve political opponents as twelve supporters of his Noble client, as he was sure they would do justice to both parties. There was left on the Jury the leader of the political party opposed to his client, but he would have as soon seen Sir Robert Peel in that box as any other gentleman ; and neither Lord Melbourne nor those who advised him, ever thought of objecting to that gentleman. He felt he was addressing twelve honest, in dependent men, and he cared not what their political bias might be, as he was satisfied they would only look to the evidence, and give a verdict according to it. An other remarkable feature in the present case was, that up to that day the defendant's advisers had not the most dis tant conception of who the witnesses were with the excep tion of two, and one (Mansell) who had not been called. In the Ecclesiastical Court, time, and place, and circum stance, must be proved, but hero there was nothing defini tive ; the evidence ranging over a period of four or five years, and excluding all evidence of what occurred within the last two or three years, during which time the parties conti nded to live in harMony. During that time Lord Mel bourne's visits continued, and he remained on the same friendly footing with the family. Nothing was given in evidence relative to 1834, 1835, or 1636—a circumstance wholly unexampled in the annals of such cases. Unless, therefore, a jury was watchful, vigilant, discriminating, and just, as he felt they would be, it was utterly impossible that the innocence of the party could be vindicated. Un der such circumstances it was impossible that a party could defend himself, except by ,showino. e' the nature of the charge, and the character of those by whom it was made. By whom were the charges made in the present instance ? By discarded servants—a race, the most dan gerous in all cases, but particularly in cases of this sort, wholly unworthy of belief. These servants generally re mained in the family for some time, and yet suspected nothing while they lived in it. They might remember the evidence of Cummins, who, during the two years and three months she remained there, suspected nothing im proper. . In the name of God, who made her suspect any thing ? Who put harm into her head ? When servants for years suspect nothing, and then come and make such state ments, what credit could possibly be attached to their testi mony ? His Learned Friend had quoted a law book, and he would quote another relative to cases like the pre sent :—" In a discovery made by a servant, it was impor tant to show that it was promptly communicated to the party injured. If it is not made till after a quarrel or dis missal from the service, or after a long interval, the evi dence labours under great suspicion." In this case the supposed discovery was made after dismisal, after a quarrel, and after a long interval. Here all the alternatives of the learned writer were put in conjunction. In the instance of the witness Fluke, he had left the service in 1834, in conse quence of a quarrel with Mrs. Norton, which he had so graphically described, and it was not until 1836 that he had made the supposed discovery. He would ask the Jury whe ther, according to the rule fluid down, they should not look at his evidence with the greatest -suspicion. One of the greatest writers, statesmen, and philosophers that had ever adorned a country-L(Edmund Burke)—in talking of do mestic servants, had said that they sowed the seeds of dis cord, and surrounded the bed and table with snares—that no man's life was safe or comfortable—and that they were nothing but instruments of terror and alarm. What family , he would ask, could be safe, if at the distance of years, dis cardej servants could come forward and make such state ments, concealed for so long a period, and which they them selves admit excited no suspicion while the circum stances were recent, and while they were there to make these observations ? If they were to be brought forward at the end of years, excited with the hopes of reward and of making their fortunes, what safety could there be, what protection for innocent persons? He could not approve of the manner in which the witnesses had been carried off from their homes to Wonersh. He cared not who was offended, but he would say that the system of carrying off the witnesses, such as had been detailed that day—of giving them large sums of money—of exciting these extravagant expectations that had been detailed if their evidence proved successful—was one which could not be defended, and was a mode of conducting a case reflect ing very little credit on those resorting to it. No case had ever been conducted as the present had been. It had been asserted that every servant in the service of Mr. Nprton would be produced : but Mrs. Gulliver, whose tes timony was most material, had been withheld. If truth only was the object of the other party, why had they not been produced? And why had not Fitness been called, who was at that moment living at Sprefs-gate. They had not dared to call him, because he was there at the time of the separation ; and if it had not been that Mrs. Morris had been called to prove the handwriting of Mrs. Norton, the circumstances which led to the separation would have remained a secret and a mystery. His Learned Friend (Sir William Follett) had not dared to touch upon that point, but he (the Attorney-General) knowinr , the innocence of the parties, had asked the ques tion, and the Jury had heard the explanation. If that had not been done, it might have been surmised that a separa tion arose from some discovery respecting Lord Melbourne, although he had as little to do with it as any of the Jury. The Learned Gentleman then detailed the cir cumstances which led to the separation as detailed in the evidence of the witness, Mrs. Morris. The story about the letters having been carried off was equally unfounded ; and he regretted that his Learned Friend had been led into statements which he could not afterwards support. If the witness Fitness had been called, it would have proved to the Jury that these letters about which so much had been said, were lying scattered about the room, under the eye of Mr. Norton, and every other member of the family. What had Mr. William Norton said, the first witness his Learned Friend had called? He had said he almost always went in by Prince's-court. Lord Melbourne had always entered by the street door, knocking, letting every one who was in the court see him there, and yet it was supposed he had gone there for the purpose of disho nouring Mr. Norton ! He (the Attorney-General) had ventured to ask Mr. W. Fletcher Norton, whether he had any improper purpose in going in at the door he did ? That gentleman was very much shocked at the question— he had no intention of dishonouring his relative ; but yet he had always entered by Prince's-court, and not by Bird Cage-walk. But if Lord Melbourne had gone in by Bird Cage-walk, how would the tables have been turned upon him ? It would then have been said that he had not dared to go in at the front door, but that he had clandestinely gone round to the back, in order that he might avoid de tection. He (the Attorney-General) could not fail to ob serve, that the failure of that attempt on the part of his Learned Friend to bolster up such evidence, had had a considerable influence upon th 6 minds of the Jury as it had had upon all present ; and after the failure it had experienced in the person of William Fletcher Nor ton, not another witness had they ventured to ex amine about the door in Princes'-court, and the door in Bird Cage-walk. That was a part of the .case upon which the Jury would recollect his Learned Friend, in his opening, mainly relied, which he himself was afterwards obliged to abandon ; and that was only a little specimen of the manner in which the case had been attempted to be trumped up. He would say that it was the duty of the plaintiff to have given evidence of the manner in which the letters that had been put in evidence were framed, on which he would make an observation hereafter ; it was the duty of the plaintiff to have laid before them the circumstances under which the quarrel and separation had taken place between Mr. and Mrs. Norton, when it might have been seen to demonstration that Lord Melbourne had no more concern in the matter than any indifferent bystander tiro in Court ; that bringing such a charge against Lord Melbourne was a mere after-thought ; that it was what had never entered into the head of Mr. Norton himself, but was put into his head by others, he would not say who, he would not insinuate who, but it must have been by some insinuating rogue who had devised the slander. It was quite clear that it was not the spontaneous suspicion of the mind of Mr. Norton—he had been played upon—the sepa ration having been brought about by a quarrel respecting the visit to Frampton. Mrs. Norton had left the house in search of her two children in a state of distraction. Then some one must have laid hold of Mr. Norton, and, for indirect purposes, had induced him to bring forward the accusation of which he never dreamt, until evi dently for a considerable time after that separation had taken place. He would now draw their attention to the evidence that had been adduced, and be would venture to lay down this as a general rule, that might be applied to all the. witnesses that had been examined—either they were wholly unworthy of belief, or they spoke of facts that were wholly irrelevant. He did not mean to say that there had not been examined some respectable witnesses ; he would discriminate between them ; he would not attack the cha racter of any witness that he believed to be honest and respectable, but he should be able to shew that the evidence of those who deserved the testimony of respectability arid credit could afford no foundation on which the charge could be founded. They first had Mr. Fletcher Norton, and he would couple with him Mr. Derby, a gentleman at the Bar of high respectability. They had given this most (A . icitioCe; lie 16tild. V,etittire to say, was wholly unexampled in thd annais itii•if,ideliee Of this or of any other country upon such a stuee. 't!4;' , ± said Mr. and Mrs. Norton lived happily together. Was it th4t if the, mind of Mrs. Norton had been alienated —if her affee,tion hat! ceased lc j )(0' h l o ), n l ( l— if she had become an adulteress; and had continued in a 1;;:;r'. course of the utmost depravity—was it in human nature that she should have continued to have lived affectionately and harmoniously with her husband ? One of the Jury had put the question to the witness, " Did they sleep together ?" They did, and generally speaking they had cohabited together as man and wife. He would therefore appeal to the Jury as men of the world, and as men of experience, whether it was possible if an adulterous inter course had begun in the year 1831, Mr. Norton not con niving at it, which his Learned Friend spurned at, and which he disclaimed, that, she should have lived at bed and board with her husband, that they should have c-intinued to have loved each other, that there should have been no diminution of affection, no discord, no quarrelling, and that that state of things should have continued from the year 1827 down to 1836 ? Why, they all knew that after a woman had surrendered her person to her paramour, she would look upon her husband with loathing—that she would consider him as an incumbrance—that she would enter his bed with abhorrence, and that it would be impo..:sible for her to meet him without exhibiting to him her loathing, and convincing him of her guilt. But Mr. Derby had told them that there was no change whatever in the manner in which they had behaved to each other ; that they were as happy, as affectionate, as regardful of each other, and as fond of their children the last time he was in their company, as they were when the intercourse between them and the witness had begun. He declared to God that-he would with the utmost solemnity say that that seemed to him to be of itself conclusive proof of the inno cence of the parties. He could not refrain from making an observation upon the letters that had been introduced. Were they the letters of a guilty woman ? He would then retort upon his Learned Friend, Sir William Follett, who was a most eminent lawyer, that he must have known that if he (the Attorney-General) had thought fit to object to the introduction of those letters, they were clearly inad missible ; and his Lordship had said, that if they were written after a suspicion of adulterous intercourse bad existed, they were inadmissible ; and so every one of the fifteen Judges would have decided. His Learned Friend carried back the adulterous intercourse to the year 1831, anterior to the time when the first of those letters was written. Did the Jury believe that a guilty woman would have written in that playful, affectionate, and touching style, respecting her husband and her children, and those letters written down to the year 1836. a short time before Mr. Norton, in an evil hour, parted with what he (the Attorney-General). believed was an affectionate and virtuous wife, whatever eccentrici ties might be chargeable to her. The last of the letters was written in 1836, and again he would ask them was it possi ble that she should talk in that playful, that simple, and that affectionate manner respecting her husband and her children, and for four or five years before that time she had been carrying on an adulterous intercourse with her para mour ? But what astonished him most was this ; why was this evidence respecting the manner in which they had lived together confined to one distant relation of the Nor ton family, a gentlemon at the Bar, who only saw them oc casionally at his house, or their house—he meant Mr. Derby. Why had not Lord Grantley been called ? He had been sitting on the bench the greater part of the day. As a matter of taste in that, he (the Attorney-General) had nothing to do with, but it was an important circumstance. There he was, the brother of the plaintiff, the Master of Wonersh, the person to whose seat went the Flukes, and went Mrs. Cummins.—(Laughter.) He should like to have heard something of the diversions of Wonersh, the conversations of my Lord Grantley and the witnesses.—(Continued laughter.) There must have been some conversations ; but no, Lord Grantley was not called. He was the natu ral witness to have been called—he was the bead of the family. They might then have seen who first recom mended an action—what advice was taken—who per suaded the unhappy George Norton to become a plaintiff in Westminster Hall—(lughterj—and for what purpose the action was brought. But Lord Grantley was not called ; and though he was then in Court, Lord Grantley remained mute upon the Bench, and was there only oat of curiosity, or to grace the cause. There were other rela tons who might have been material as witnesses in the box, but none had been called. Why had Miss Norton not been called? She had been 4 months in the family in 1832. There were two other branches of the illustrious House of Norton, and none of them had been called except Mr. William Fletcher Norton, who was a very distant relation, and who called, he supposed, merely because he happened to be the name of Norton. Then it was said, Miss Norton was abroad—but Lord Grantley was not abroad—Lord Grantley was sitting on the bench, he might have been called, but he remained neuter. He (the Attorney-Gene ral) complained of this. A case of that sort was to be made out by the party who made the charge, and if he did not venture to put in the witness-box those who ought to be called, then he gave evidence against himself, and acknowledged the charge was un founded. Would it not have been a fair thing for his Learned Friend to have called Lady Graham, the aunt of Mrs. Norton, and Lady Seymour and Mrs. Blackwood, to have stated to us the affectionate terms upon which Mr. and Mrs. Norton lived together—to have stated the high ' opinion they entertained of her chastity and purity, when it would have been proved that they had never up to that time disassociated themselves from her society. Was it likely, that in a drawing-room, open at all times to visitors and to servants, parties in such a situation in life should commit, not one, but repeated acts of adultery ? It was monstrous—it was incredible. If the other side wished to have a fair judgment on all the facts, why was not Miss Armstrong called, a witness on whom the most implicit re liance might be placed ? The Hon. and Learned Gen tleman then proceeded to comment on the inconsistency and contradiction in the evidence of the witness Milkman, in stating at one time that he had never entered the room of Mrs. Norton when Lord Melbourne was there ; and afterwards his alleging his finding Lord Melbourne, on two occasions, sitting on the sofa with Mrs. Norton ; and, on one occasion, with his hand resting on her shoulder. The Learned Gentleman then went into a most searching and minute examination of the testimony of the other wit nesses, which we have already given at great length. His speech seemed to produce an extraordinary effect on the Jury and on the audience. He complained of the rumours that had been not only most in dustriously but most wickedly circulated with respect to letters of Lord Melbourne which were alleged to have been discovered. Did the three letters pro duced—selected no doubt from a variety as the worst that could be found—did they reflect upon the character of Lord Melbourne, either as a man or a Minister ? He then re ferred to the letters of Mrs. Norton, and contended that they were the letters of innocence, of affection, and of a vir tuous woman. He asked if those letters could have been written by an habitual adultress ? -He alluded to the family of Mrs. Norton, which for five generations had been distinguished for extraordinary talent and genius—no member of which had ever felt the taint of dishonour. Yes, this was the first attempt to throw infamy on any member of the family of Sheridan. The Hon. and Learnec4' Gentleman then went on as_ follows :—Before I conchide, I must remark that it is quite clear that Mr. Dorton has been made a tool of. Suspicions have been in fused into his mind without any reason whatever—he has been abused for political purposes, which any respectable member of the party opposed to Lord Melbourne would abhor and spurn at. This is not their warfare—this is not the way in which a .public man or party is attacked. So would have said Sir Robert Peel, and so I think lie would say if he were associated with you in the jury box, and so would say any Hon. Member of the party honourably opposed in po litics to Lord Melbourne. But it is quite clear that some persons have made Mr.'Norton a tool—an instrument of shame—he has been persuaded to allow his name to be used, and used merely for party and political purposes. Before I conclude I think it right in the name of Lord Melbourne to declare, as he instructed me to do, in the most clear, emphatic, and solemn manner, that he never had criminal intercourse with Mrs. Norton, nor did he ever do anything in the s li g ht es t d egree t o a b use th e con fid e nce which Mr. Norton reposed in him. I allow that you must find your verdict according to the evidence, and that you must not allow yourselves to be swayed by the solemn de claration of Lord Melbourne. You must look to the evi dence. I wish you to do so—but, looking at the evidence, I say that it is utterly impossible to find a verdict for the plaintiff. They have not attempted to prove that anything has taken place within the last three years —they have not called the witnesses who could prove what had taken place. They had.gone back to the years 1831, 1832, and 1833, and they call for such purposes to afford some colour for an inference of guilt, such witnesses as Fluke, who is shown to be a drunkard and a swindler, and Cummins, who acknowledges that she prefers to live as a mistress rather than a wife, and who declares that in all the time she lived with Mrs. Norton there was no ground for suspicion, and she thought no wrong. Under these cir cumstances, how am I to call witnesses ? It is impossible. I cannot call Lord Melbourne or Mrs. Norton —one is the defendant, and the other the wife of the plaintiff. I can not call Curtis or Sly, because Fluke ha s taken care to render it quite impossible. It is utterly impossible that di rect evidence can be 'brought forward, a nd this being th e case I willingly and unhesitatingly trust to the discrimina tion, the justice, and 'the impartiality of an English Jury. [The Learned Gentleman sat down amidst some cheering, which, however, was quickly repressed.] The Attorney-General commenced his speech at a few minutes before seven, and concluded at a quarter past ten o'clock. • IMR1) CHIEF Jusrrct: then commenced summing up the case fti This was an action brough t b y file Heal. Q. C. .I\oftt - JII Og;:iis,st the Right Hon. Lord VI,- co unt nettokii-ria ; to recover aompensation in damages for the seduction of ( 1 10 . plaintiff's) %dr.!. Now, at the evidence in the case, ilitHY was no proof of the a ctual la,,rttrai..;,,a of the act of adultery itself, but they would have in looking to say, deCalik i ii their calm and deliberate judgment of the facts, whether or nal tlicl Colt themselves warran ted in coming to the conclusion that lite iigt9al fact of adalfcrY had taken place. That there had been giTat familiarity, and the closest intimacy, was most undoubtedly prove but that was not sufficient ; the action was not brooght fat, the familiarity, but for the actual fact of adultery, and tiley were to Pay upon the oaths they had taken if they were satisfied that from a just and necessary c onclusion from the facts, the act of adultery had been committed. It appeared that the marriage had taken place in the month of J ther uly, 1827, and that the parties had lived happ il y toge until the present year, and it did not appear that the act of' sepafation that had taken place was occasioned by any immediate stisnieion the plaintiff had entertained of the honour of his wife, but from some other cause, since which inquiries had been made, which had led to the pre ' sent investigatim. It appeared also t hat the earliest com munication that had taken place was in tl:9 spring of the year 1831, and that there had continued certaii:!.v C ondt.. derable degree of intimacy till the present year. CCrt ni " circumstances had been brought in review before them, upod which they would have to .form their deliberate judgment, none of which came down to a later period than the month of November, 1833, and the circumstance related as having taken place at that tune was the strongest that had that brought forward. He had already stated to the m they must not be satisfied with suspicion in a matter of this sort, but they must—upon a fair consideration of the facts, accompanied with the reasoning which, as men of sense and discrimination—in the ordinary course of life they would resort to, endeavour to ascertain the. real truth and bearing of the case. They would apply to the evidence tha t same degree of guarded and temperate discrimination that they would to the ordinary transactions of life. if it was 5 f weak as not to satisfy them that the act was committed, they would find a verdict for the defendant ; but if they considered it was so strong that they must infer that the act of adultery had been committed, then they must find their verdict accordingly. Witnesses were called first to state what was the conduct of the husband and wife during the time they had lived together, because according to that conduct depended the damages to be given in a case of this sort ; but it was hardly necessary those witnesses should have been called, because they had had letters produced from her to her husband down to the present year, showing a strong affection for her husband, and a great attachment for her chil dren. It was impossible to read them without seeing that the expressions fell from the heart as well as the pen of the writer ; therefore it seemed that down to the period shortly before the separation had taken place, the hus band and wife evinced a mutual regard and affection for each other, and that she had a great attachment for her children which had been born since her marriage. Tu n rest of the evidence was such as went to trace out the intimacy that subsisted, and upon which they were to exercise their judgment, to see whether or not it could have been an innocent familiarity. The first witness called was a person who was not one of the family itself, but was one of the relations, he believed a sister of the present plain tiff, who was paying a visit at the house of Mr. Norton in 1832, and she was called upon to say what circumstance s she observed for some months in that year, but she did not throw more light upon the case than to show the general course of dealing that subsisted—that the defendant was permitted to come into the room at any time he pleased all the witnesses indeed agreed in this, that during many days in each week he was paying visits to her, some times for one hour, and sometimes longer, and that Mr, Norton went every day to his office and did not return home till six o'clock The learned Chief Justice then com menced reading minutely the evidence of the different wits' nesses, and on coming to that part of the evidence of Cut** mins where the witness spoke to seeing Mrs. Norton and the defendant sitting holding the hand of the other, his Lordship said whether it was a guilty indication must be left to their own good sense. As to the evidence of Eliza Gibson, if Lord Melbourne was not there when the door was locked, it was of no consequence whether the door was locked or not locked, but it was a singular thing that whets others went to the door and Lord Melbourne was there, it was unlocked. It would, at all events, have been a greater safeguard to have locked it, than have trusted to the L ob d e• dience of servants to the order not to come in when or Melbourne was there. With regard to Mrs. Norton writing notes to the defendant, many of the witnesses had spoken to the fact of taking them and bringing answers. They were to consider that there was a great degree of intimacy between these parties, and it must be left for them (the jury) to say, whether the circumstance of employing set,er vents indiscriminately to carry these notes, afforded a suspicion of guilt or innocence. As to the visits in South street, which were spoken to by Bulleman, they were done very openly, for they were paid in the company of a per son who was a friend of her's, who was without the slightest suspicion, and it was evident that that lady had not thought there was any thing improper in them. The circumstance of this lady not beinc , called was not to be wondered at, because it was extremely unpleasant for a lady to be put in the witness-box, and more particularly in a case of this kind. They then came to the witness Fluke , upon whose evidence they must exercise their discrimina" tion, because if they believed what he said his evidence was of great importance ; but from the mode in which he had given his evidence, and the account which he had given , they would say whether he was the witness of u truth, be' cause if he was, it was clear that it might lead to a concl sion that the act was committed. They must determine whether they believed the witness or not. Non e of the. other witnesses spoke to any act approaching to an act ot adultery, but spoke to circumstances from which they were to infer it ; but this witness had spoken of facts from whin they were to say whether the act was committed or not he spoke to facts which would render it less difficult to come to a conclusion ; but then came the question whether they implicitly believed the statement he had made ; thcY had had the benefit of seeing him, and would form th e . ir own judgment. The witness had described the way in which Mrs. Norton was lying on the rug. That was, - a situation of high indelicacy at least ; whethe r it was ue fore or after the supposed act of adultery wa s left nen tirely to conjecture. The counsel had made their co. tnents upon it, and he had nothing more to offer than by bin!" calling their attention to the man's own acco unt of self, from which they might judge of the value of his testi; mony. He certainly had given an account of himself: 10), favourable to his dealings as an honest man. When t -, were looking at the witness to weigh him , it was n ot in material to see whether he was a moral and honest man other points, though that did not come precisely !elan° to question whether he was committing perjury or not• n,_ asked questions as to circumstances of a late period, 'PI did not answer very clearly- When asked whys/ter be br e not expressed that he had formed ce rtain- , expectat ions, h d had given answers that would induce surprise that he not recollect. He said lie bad no knowl ed g e, though lut t would not btiF; himself to say he did not say it: The-ne witness examined was Anne Cummins , the result of. av'te testimony was that Lord Melbourne liall-paid- 4 4. 3 . nY' 4 t )te her Mrs. Norton, but that no suspreionlaitd been r aised in mind of any guilt between them. The marks on the line which she had spoken could not have arisen, she thoucrt_ from any effeminate weakness, as Mrs. Norton was a_v ec ! strong lady ; and yet she did not suppose them to have the result of criminal intercourse, because no susnl of any such thing had been excited in her mind. l 7 oP: _n the whole of this case the Jury s hould exercise theirfrin.nu_ judgment. No general rule could be laid down or o and temperate discretion directed to the en! inferences from particular facts. Their o t vv .r n e c g a o s o e d s sense o uld lead them to a decision. They an ambiguous nature, that were en usutannoyt capable e l yupo n o f fa i c n t t s e o r the y m ust !oak to the di f pretation one way as the other ; d et ermining whether t ferent points of the evidence, . first i - they thought so the basis Coybe.n the act o f was credible or not, an tiP then maki ndgg meet ptohret.yio nshould i t as r , themselves whether the, adultery had been committed l b el e ' t a w n fecerniro Lordm thatt i‘iel b ourn and the wife of the plaintiff? If, looking that various witnesses, they should come to tint conclusion. it they might safely infer that such act had been Ornri',.,tt Tie would be their duty to give a verdict for the plainLtr lb the testimony of the should say nothing whatever on the subject of dami,e.s_ which was exclusively for their own c onsideration , lookingn of the world and good sense: If on the other hand, at all the circumstances of the case, discernment and caution which he had before calledseh attention to, they should not be satisfied that the ea v e ts the the part of the plaintiff had been proved, in the, °itemise of t t . tt_ they would give a verdict for the defendant.,eapa was leaving the case in very safe hands when it it theirs. He should not gi ve even the shad r an opinion of his own upon it ; for he should beos.o)err,yir; throw that weight, if so it co uld- be said I the scale in favour of either party. Besides, conferred 013- would be taking from them what the law ha f deciding upo n on th em exclusively —namely, the power o in their handgs the subject. He, therefore, left it completelyhis doing se confident that they would decide justly. It is my du t Y and said---" My Lord, we are agree h defendant." diet for t e The f o reman of the jury instantly ad.dressed the Court,to say that we have agreed to a vcr d to have been the Court exclaimed " Bravo," which seemed several per of decorum, s At this announcement some one at the extreme end of the signal for an increased breach Inch was tof the Court. , followed by hisses from a different sons having thereupon commenced cheering-, w The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE rosepafrrom the bench, o ° - served that this was most disgraceful conduct, and called 3